Acts – La Vista Church of Christ

The book of Acts is a favorite of many in the church. It is perhaps the most widely taught and read book in the churches of Christ. Much of our doctrine and practice stems directly from this 28-chapter narrative history. The truth is that Acts is a remarkable story of promises and fulfillment.

This wonderful narrative was written by Luke, a physician, and addressed to Theophilus, the most excellent. Most scholars will agree that Acts is a continuation of the Gospel according to Luke, a part two, if you will. It begins where Luke’s gospel ends, with the ascension of Jesus Christ. Most people are unaware that Acts is one of the longest books in the New Testament. With 1003 verses, only Luke and Matthew’s gospels are longer.

The name of the book is somewhat of a misnomer, as the majority of the Apostles are not even mentioned. In reality, Acts is the account of Peter (chapters 1-8) and Paul (chapters 9-28) that traces the spread of the Lord’s church from Jerusalem to Judea, to Samaria, and the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

It is a wonderful account of the church that Jesus promised (Matthew 16:18). In dramatic fashion, we follow the disciples, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit, as they take the gospel to the ends of the earth. We get to experience their struggles with the Jews, their failures, and their victories. We get to walk along with them as Peter takes the gospel to the Gentiles and Paul takes it all the way to Rome, standing up to political and religious powers who wanted nothing more than to stop them. Yet, God was with the church, and they continued to move forward by His power.

Darrell Bock, a New Testament scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary, makes this observation. He says the key character in Acts is God: His activity and His plan. The apostles are not the important characters of Acts. Rather, God’s activity stands at the center of the account. Acts narrate God’s work in establishing the church through Jesus' activities. It tells us how the Holy Spirit worked through the disciples to create a new community for the people of God. Both Jews and Gentiles make up this new community. So, Acts is a sociological, historical, and theological work explaining the roots of this new community of Jesus followers.

An interesting aspect of Acts is that one-third, if not half, of the book consists of sermons and speeches. This includes eight addresses by Peter and by Stephen (Acts 7). There are sermons and speeches by individuals such as James, Paul, and the Jerusalem elders (Acts 15). It also includes addresses by notable figures such as Gamaliel, the Pharisees, Demetrius the silversmith, Festus, Tertullus, and Felix.

Let me encourage you to re-read Acts. Read like you would read any story. Observe the structure, the movement of the story, and the larger-than-life characters that it describes. I am sure you will see the hand of God as he moves them along, sometimes even against their will. Read it as a divinely inspired treatise on our origins and the struggles faced by these great men and women, bringing you pure New Testament Christianity.

Trusting God (Flores)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 05 May 2025 17:14:35 +0000

by Zeke Flores

In chapter 2 of his prophetic book, Joel foretells of the events during Pentecost related in Acts 2. His concluding statement from that prophecy was that "it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered" (Joel 2:32). To "call on the name of the Lord" sounds like calling out to someone in prayer and that's the way most people consider that phrase. But in reality, the meaning is closer to putting one's trust and confidence in God and all that pertains to Him.

For instance, who was saved on Pentecost? Those who obeyed Peter's preaching. That is, they repented of sin and submitted to baptism for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38, 41). What did they do? Did they "call on the Lord" in prayer? No. In fact, Peter never mentioned prayer when they asked what they should do. They responded to the Lord's will in repentance and baptism, believing that if they did so, their sins would be forgiven.

When they responded in obedience, they were saved. They "called on the Lord” by putting their trust in Him and manifesting that trust by their direct obedience. In short, they did what He said to do.

Is it any different today? No, although people will maintain that "calling on the name of the Lord" is a simple utterance of prayer asking Him into their hearts and begging His salvation. Instead, Scripture tells us we are to "call on His name" as we hear what He says and do it. What saved the people on Pentecost saves people today.

"Peter said to them, 'Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

"Why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (Acts 22:16).

The Case of the Philippian Jailor

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:30:47 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

He wanted to know, “What shall I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30). The simple answer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). The details of why believe in Jesus, what to believe about Jesus, and how to express faith in Jesus followed. In other words, explanations of what is involved in believing in Jesus to be saved were given (Acts 16:32). “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (Acts 16:30-32).

You mean they had not spoken the complete word of the Lord to him about how to be saved? No! They have stated a summary word, faith, but not the details of what is involved with faith in Jesus, so they explained it, giving him the details of how to be saved and what is involved under the umbrella of faith in Jesus. He showed godly sorrow and repentance by washing the stripes of those he had earlier beaten and was baptized at the same hour of the night (Acts 16:33).

Why the urgency in baptism? It was one of the details of how to be saved (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). It was one of the details of how to express faith in Jesus. After baptism, he “rejoiced, having believed in God” (Acts 16:34). When Jesus placed faith and baptism before salvation (“he that believes and is baptized shall be saved” - Mark 16:16), the Philippian jailor believed Jesus enough to express faith properly by not just having a claimed “faith only” but showing an active faith in Jesus. In other words, if he had refused the baptism part of being saved, he would be showing unbelief, not faith in Jesus and what Jesus said. So, since salvation is after baptism, not before, he was baptized after midnight, the same hour of the night. Unlike today, where people deny the urgency and put baptism off for days and weeks, the truth is that baptism is part of having sins remitted (Acts 2:38), having sins washed away (Acts 22:16), entering into the death of Jesus for those blessings (Romans 6:3-6), uniting together with Christ (Romans 6:5-6), and being able to “rise up for newness of life" (Romans 6:5-6; Colossians 2:12). Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved because true believers have faith enough in Jesus to be baptized in His name.

Do you truly believe?

Follow-Up

Despite the evidence presented above, some have been so blinded by traditional “faith-only doctrine” that they will defend their doctrine at any cost. They will not be faithful to the text over tradition. Peter discusses people who “twist the scriptures to their own destruction” (II Peter 3:16).

One responded to the above by ignoring the textual evidence presented and the supporting verses and just asserting, “Acts 16:30-31 clearly states that faith alone is required for salvation.”

But “faith alone” is not what Paul said to the jailer. He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Is it enough to believe Jesus is just a man, maybe an earthly governor? That would be "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ," but with insufficient information about what to believe about this man. Is it enough to believe that Jesus Christ is a mere good man who is a Lord, like other earthly kings? Will that bit of insufficient information magically wipe my sins away and transport me out of darkness into His kingdom?

Why did they follow that general statement, "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him?” Clearly, they had to explain what to believe about Jesus and tell Jesus’ words about “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:15-16). Isn’t that what believing in Jesus requires? After stating the general requirement of faith and then speaking the word of the Lord to him, it is clear that they had not yet spoken the word of the Lord to him. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). This man had not heard the word of the Lord with just that introductory statement: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” The word of the Lord details what to believe about this man, Jesus Christ, at what level of “Lordship” (human or divine level?), and about Jesus’ death on the cross. Can the jailer be saved without this information? Does the jailer have to believe Jesus was born of a virgin, was God in human flesh, was raised from the dead and showed His power even over death?

Would he need to know how faith is expressed in repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism in the name of Jesus? Apparently so, because after they spoke the word of the Lord to him, he showed his faith by washing their stripes and being baptized the same out of the night. How did he know he needed to do these things? Because the general statement of “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” was further explained when they then spoke the word of the Lord to him. They explained what to believe about Jesus, why it was necessary, and how faith must be expressed. Otherwise, the man would not know what to believe about Jesus, why he needed to believe and obey Jesus, and how to express faith in Jesus. That was all further explained to him.

To say “faith alone is required for salvation” is to say what the text does not say. Further, the text shows he hadn’t heard the word of the Lord yet and further indicates he repented and was baptized the same hour of the night, and that is when the text says he "believed in God." In other words, had he not repented and been baptized, the evidence would show that he did not believe in the Lord.

Further, James clearly says we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:14-24). Why would someone contradict James and say what Paul did not say? I hope the one making the assertion will give this more honest thought and consideration because to teach salvation by “faith alone” is to teach what no Scripture ever says and flat-out contradicts the scriptures that say, “not by faith alone.”

When you contradict God’s word you are doing exactly what the serpent did in the Garden (Gen.3). That is a doctrine that brings death, not life. So, never listen to someone who uses Acts 16:30-34 to teach salvation by faith alone. It is not in that text, is contrary to the text and other clear statements of God in scriptures. That is a doctrine of demons, that want people to feel a false sense of security. Jesus warned about this in Matthew 7:21-24. Calling Jesus “Lord” will not save you if you do not DO what He says. The jailer is an example of faith leading to his repentance and baptism, not stopping short of salvation. Do not be deceived!

The Umbrella Nature of the Term “Faith”

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 08 Jul 2024 01:08:02 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

One preacher (Stephen Whitsett) argued the following:

"In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12)."

In the first part of this paragraph, he says it is possible that the 3000 were baptized “as a result of” already having forgiveness of sins. In the final sentence of his paragraph he was not wise enough to catch that he has forgiveness associated “with the act of repentance and faith in Christ”. He had argued that “repent” is connected to “eis” (which he defines as “because of”), and thus, he has remission of sins in place before repenting. He argues that you must repent because you already have remission of sins. He digs his hole deeper now because if his earlier argument is so, then he has remission of sins before “repentance and faith.” He can’t say Acts 2:38 means “repent because of the remission of sins,” but Acts 3:19 means to repent to have sins blotted out. You can’t have it both ways. Either repentance is to have remission of sins in Acts 2:38 or repentance and faith are because of the remission of sins via his appeal to Acts 3:17-26; 4:8-12. He has tried to argue both ways, but now he is entangled in the contradiction of his own argument.

He argues that the moment a person believes, they “had already received forgiveness of sins” and gives a string of references, none of which say or imply that claim. So, sometimes, he argues that repentance is before the remission of sins, and sometimes, he argues that repentance is after the remission of sins.

John 1:12 says that the believer has the right to become children of God. It does not say that they became children of God at some mysterious moment that some faith entered their brain.
John 3:14-18 makes no claim about the moment in faith that one is forgiven. John 3:21 shows that it is faith that “does the truth.” So, this passage actually refutes his claim.
John 5:24 speaks of the believer passing from death to life but does not describe the moment or how much hearing of Jesus’ word is involved, whereas John 12:42 shows some men who believed but would not confess Jesus. Did their faith cause them to pass from death to life anyway, without confessing Jesus? So, John 5:24 does not say what all is included in faith. If confessing is included, so are repentance and baptism.
John 11:25-26 tells us that faith is involved but not what all is involved with faith. Is confession and repentance involved? Are those necessary ingredients of faith? If so, then so is baptism. If confession and repentance don’t have to be mentioned, then baptism does not either. If faith is an umbrella term that automatically includes other ingredients such as confession and repentance, then the word faith is umbrella enough to include baptism and not exclude any of these.
Acts 10:43 doesn’t do any better since believing in Jesus includes repentance, confession, and baptism. If confession is included, then faith is an umbrella term that includes other specifics under its generic nature.
Acts 13:39 is the same way. If faith must be characterized by repentance and confession, then it must also be characterized by baptism in the name of Jesus.
Acts 16:31 goes on to show that it was a faith that needed baptism at the same hour of the night. Again, the nature and content of faith do not exclude baptism but rather include it.
Acts 26:18 again uses the umbrella term “faith,” but that word includes repentance, confession, and baptism. You don’t truly believe if you don’t repent and don’t confess Jesus and are not baptized in the name of Jesus. Faith is the general term that includes these elements and does not exclude any of them.
Romans 10:9 shows that it is a faith that moves to confession with the mouth. Thus, faith includes confession, which he already showed, including death to sin and burial in baptism in Romans 6:3-6. So, faith includes all these items and does not exclude any of them.
Ephesians 1:12-14 does not show a faith that excludes confession, repentance, and baptism. Involved with trusting Him is trusting Him enough to repent and be baptized.

So, there is not one verse that says or implies that there is a magic moment of faith. Besides, what is included in faith? Is salvation given the moment someone says, “Jesus is good?” Do I need more information? Do I believe without knowing about His virgin birth, His being in the flesh, His dying on the cross, His resurrection? How much information magically does the trick? Does it do the trick before repentance? If so, then you have agreed that there is a lot packed in that word faith and that not just any level of faith will do the trick. You have argued to let us know that repentance and confession are involved with faith before it is a faith that saves. But once you admit that repentance, knowledge of Jesus’ fleshly life, sacrifice on the cross, resurrection, and confession are all essential elements and characteristics of saving faith, you have lost any argument that baptism is also not included.

“Faith” is an umbrella term that includes all the elements of knowledge, confession, repentance, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. If you can’t prove how much knowledge is essential, and you can’t prove that confession and repentance are excluded, then you can’t prove that baptism is excluded. You lose the whole argument! Faith is an umbrella term that covers the entire range of things essential to a saving kind of faith. James clearly said it is “not by faith only,” a faith that does not include obedient action (James 2:14-24). So, baptism is part of the faith that brings us into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). Isolating some verses that mention faith is not enough to establish the exact moment in faith that we enter into Christ. Paul told us the exact moment in faith that our sins are cut off (Colossians 2:12). I believe the Spirit revealed moment!

Was Acts 2:36 a Necessary Inference?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:21:29 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Peter presented many powerful points of evidence from the Jews' own scriptures and eyewitness testimony in Acts 2:22-35, and he brought his presentation of evidence to a conclusive “therefore.” This word signals that he draws necessary inferences from the facts presented. “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly ...” This means that Peter does not think it is a “possible inference” among other possible inferences, but that this is the only inference that can be legitimate, and that necessary inference is that “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36).

The miracles, wonders, and signs Jesus performed were done through Him “in your midst, as you yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22). They could not dispute that Jesus worked miracles in their midst. That is one clear piece of evidence confirming God was with Him (John 3:1).

The fact that

“God raised up” (Acts 2:24) Jesus from the dead,
David’s Psalms 16 agrees with this (Acts 2:25-31),
Eyewitnesses were testifying of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 2:32),
The Spirit had been poured out in clear display on that day (Acts 2:33), and
Jesus had “ascended into the heavens” in agreement with scripture (Psalms 110) to be at God’s right hand.

This was all the evidence needed to force the logical conclusion, the inescapable conclusion, and the necessary inference that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

It does not matter if the majority of the Jewish leaders refused to face the evidence and agreed with Peter. It does not matter if they “disputed” Peter’s conclusion in their minds. It was dishonest to refuse to face the facts Peter presented. Dishonesty may cause people to “dispute” a necessary inference, but disputing the conclusion does not make the conclusion only an opinion or just a possible inference. Many times, a necessary inference is disputed because a party refuses to be honest. The facts and the necessary inference remain facts and remain necessary inferences.

The only rock-solid conclusion, the rock on which Jesus promised to build His church, is the truth that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. There is no other possibility that can also be legitimate. You either stand on this rock to the reward of eternal life, or that rock will crush you and expose your eternal ruin. The factual evidence Peter presented that day forced a necessary inference. That is what evidence does.

What is your conclusion?